11 Nov 2014
The appellant repeatedly failed to respond to Registrar's notices, did not communicate or appear at the directions conference and therefore had not prosecuted the appeal with due diligence; accordingly the appeal is dismissed under s161(3)(b).
12 Mar 2014
The advocate's unexplained non-attendance at the scheduled callover constituted a gross discourtesy and failure to perform his functions; courts have jurisdiction to impose costs against an advocate personally (per JCP v SS and Mark Winter decisions); a modest costs award ($75) and directions for a further callover were appropriate to compensate the respondent and ensure progression of the appeal.
5 Sept 2013
Because the appellant failed to file submissions and did not attend the directions conference despite reasonable notification and a final opportunity, the court was satisfied there was a failure to prosecute with due diligence and dismissed the appeal under s161(3) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.
5 Sept 2013
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to prosecute it with due diligence and the Court properly exercised its power under s161(3) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 after giving a final opportunity to comply.
9 Feb 2009
The appeal was struck out because the appellant failed to attend the hearing without any reasonable excuse after being notified and the matter had been certified ready for hearing, thereby constituting failure to prosecute.
11 Jul 2008
The appeals were dismissed because the appellant repeatedly failed to respond to registry communications, failed to attend directions conferences, and failed to file submissions by ordered deadlines, permitting dismissal under s161(3)(b).
22 Apr 2008
The appeal is struck out because the appellant failed to prosecute it with due diligence despite repeated directions, opportunities and communications from the Court and Registry, and the Court may exercise its power under s161(3)(b) to strike out on that ground even though formal proof of personal service of the application was not produced where the Registry made reasonable efforts to notify the appellant.
19 Jun 2007
The court held that indemnity costs should reimburse the defendant only for wasted preparation (not for preparation that will be used at the later hearing) and for actual and reasonable costs; applying those principles the court reduced the defendant's claim and awarded indemnity costs of $3,440 for the adjourned hearing and $975 for the directions conference (total $4,415), payable within 10 working days, with a stay of proceedings if unpaid.